Who took over leadership of GrapheneOS after Daniel Micay stepped down?

1. The public exit: what Micay said and why it mattered

Micay's public post and subsequent redistributed reports made clear he was relinquishing his roles as the project's lead developer and as a GrapheneOS Foundation director, framing the decision around escalating harassment, including swatting, and a need to end his use of public social media ^{[1] [2]}. Multiple community aggregators and commentary sites summarized the announcement as a definitive step down in late May 2023, underscoring that this represented a major change for a project that Micay had led since its origins ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Institutional context: GrapheneOS governance and the foundation

GrapheneOS began as Micay's solo project and, according to the project's own history, was explicitly controlled by him as the developer and leader; the creation of a company and later a foundation was intended to institutionalize the project while keeping it independently owned and controlled by Micay ^[3]. Contemporary summaries — including Wikipedia — record the fact of his May 2023 step-down but do not, in the excerpts provided, catalog an immediate named successor to his technical or foundation leadership roles ^[6].

3. What the reporting does — and does not — say about succession

Multiple sources repeat Micay's statement that he would be "replaced as a GrapheneOS Foundation director" and that there would be "a smooth migration" of responsibilities, but none of the provided items supplies a clear name of an interim lead, a board appointment, or a single person "taking over" the leadership mantle ^{[1] [2]}. Community discussion (forums, Lemmy, Hacker News) and advocacy pieces document reactions and defense of Micay, yet these community reports focus on the step-down and its causes rather than announcing a successor ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Why the absence of a named successor matters

Because GrapheneOS's development and governance had been closely tied to its founder, the lack of a clearly reported successor creates uncertainty about how responsibilities — technical oversight, project vision, foundation duties — were redistributed, and whether leadership moved to a team model or another individual ^[3]. The available sources indicate an intention to transfer responsibilities but stop short of detailing the mechanism or naming who assumed them, leaving a factual gap in public reporting ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Alternative accounts and implicit agendas in the coverage

Some community voices framed the step-down as protective and necessary for Micay's safety, while others on discussion threads criticized his behavior, indicating contested narratives that may influence how successor information was communicated or withheld ^{[4] [7]}. Coverage from sympathetic commentators describes a defense of Micay and optimism for institutional stability, suggesting an agenda to preserve the project's reputation; conversely, forum posts critical of Micay emphasize interpersonal conflict, which could complicate transparent succession messaging ^{[5] [7]}.

6. Reporting limitation and recommended next steps for verification

The reporting assembled here does not name who took over leadership after Micay's May 2023 announcement; therefore, no definitive claim can be made from these sources about a successor. To close this factual gap, primary sources to consult would include official GrapheneOS foundation filings or announcements, the GrapheneOS project's official website and history pages, and public minutes or statements from the GrapheneOS Foundation board made after May 2023 ^{[6] [3]}. The present analysis sticks to what these sources document and clearly flags the absence of a named replacement in the supplied material.